Microsoft reveals Xbox One headsets aren’t included with base system [updated]

PS4 includes a headset, but Xbox One owners can use Kinect to talk to friends

UPDATE: Microsoft sent along this statement in response to a request from Ars Technica.

Xbox One does not include a pack-in headset accessory. Each Xbox One includes the new Kinect sensor, with a highly sensitive multi-array microphones designed to enable voice inputs and chat as a system-level capability, both in-game and with Skype and other experiences. For gamers who prefer a headset, we have a variety of offerings that you can find on the Xbox Wire.

ORIGINAL STORY

Amid the fallout from an explosive E3 earlier this month, Microsoft quietly revealed some of the official accessories that will be released alongside the Xbox One in November. On this list was a one-ear mono headset that seems relatively unremarkable except for one well-hidden fact: it apparently will not be included in the box with the Xbox One.

The Official Xbox Magazineconfirmed the lack of a packaged headset with Xbox Support, which tweeted that the system "does not come with a headset." That's in contrast to the current $299, 250GB Xbox 360 model, which includes a basic headset in the box (the lower-priced 4GB model does not include a headset). It's also another difference between the Xbox One and the PlayStation 4, the latter of which will include a basic mono earbud and microphone with each system.

Xbox One users without a headset will still be able to chat with friends using the included Kinect and its multidirectional microphone. Microsoft has taken great pains to show off that device filtering out TV noise and picking up even quiet voice commands from around the room. However, it remains to be seen just how well this setup can replace a standard headset for multiplayer chat.

Microsoft has not revealed a price for its optional headset accessory, but it's promoting a variety of third-party headsets from Turtle Beach and Polk for prices up to $200. These units promise to be able to stream stereo or surround game audio through the wireless controller rather than requiring a long cord connected to the system or TV.

Thanks to a proprietary connection to the controller, existing Xbox 360 headsets will not be directly usable on the Xbox One. Turtle Beach, however, has said that it will be providing an adapter that lets its Xbox One headsets work on Xbox 360 controllers, proving that such inter-compatibility is possible with extra hardware.

In addition to the headset, Microsoft has revealed a Play and Charge kit for the Xbox One. This will replace the standard AA batteries on the Xbox One controller with a rechargeable pack, much like the similar product for the Xbox 360. PlayStation 4 controllers will be rechargeable out of the box, but standard Xbox One controllers will be usable in a "wired" mode when connected to the system via a normal USB micro cable.

Promoted Comments

As noted in the story, only the top-end, 250GB edition of the Xbox 360 currently comes with a headset -- 4GB systems don't. Historically, it was usually only the top-end configuration of the Xbox 360, with the largest hard drive at the time, that included a headset. Early on, the low-end systems didn't even have a wireless controller, opting for a wired one instead.

Since there is only one Xbox One configuration (@ $499), it was unclear which end of the spectrum the new system would emulate in this regard. Apparently they are counting on Kinect to provide default voice features instead of a headset.

Why is everyone so focused on the headset. For me, the lack of an out-of-the-box recharging solution is another reason to buy a PS4. The play and charge kit will likely be $20-$30 on top of a console that is already $100 more than a PS4.

4 posts | registered May 20, 2013

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

194 Reader Comments

The goal of a business it to make money.The people that own Microsoft, the shareholders, would expect nothing less of Microsoft than to try its best to make money. There is nothing evil about that. It's how corporations work. Sure, Microsoft will make missteps along the way, but that's natural. It's a large corporation, and it's not lead by omniscient people.

yes, there is something evil about that. left unchecked, corporations would happily enslave people, because there are massive economic advantages to owning slaves (you make a lot of money off of them). consequently, society has countermeasures, like laws banning slavery. however, corporations will always push as far as they can, and then some. they import desperate people on H1 Visas and pay them peanuts, for example. they buy influence in the government to push the law in their favor.... even if it's done out of "instinct," i'd call the net result extremely evil.

my concern with microsoft in particular is their constant power-grabbing. they want to own my whole electronic life: xbox in the living room, windows on my computer, windows on my phone. they use their market position to make life difficult for anyone that fights this grand unification scheme.... because if they pull it off, you become like a fief in medieval times. that is exactly the sort of position a billionaire multinational should not be in, because they'll eat everyone alive -- like a tiger left in a room with a basket full of adorable babies.

most people see this straight off, and microsoft's "uncool uncle" approach to make us "excited" about our future slavery plays about as well as a pride parade at a tailgate event.

As noted in the story, only the top-end, 250GB edition of the Xbox 360 currently comes with a headset -- 4GB systems don't. Historically, it was usually only the top-end configuration of the Xbox 360, with the largest hard drive at the time, that included a headset. Early on, the low-end systems didn't even have a wireless controller, opting for a wired one instead.

Perhaps there are different definitions of "top-end, 250G edition", then. My "top-end, 250GB" Xbox 360 did not come with a headset.

I was starting to doubt my memory, so I hauled out the box. Here are the contents:

I kind of like the PS3 model where any bluetooth headset would work. I'm hoping the PS4 uses a similar implementation.

Looks like the xbox model is proprietary again.

and USb headsets. If you bought one that was capable of being used on the xbox/pc, you had to flip the switch from PS3/PC to XbOX .. which I thought was funny considering I had to have the special compatibility mode to use a different microsoft product...

I'd rather have a headset. I have a kinect now and don't care for yelling across the room for the thing to hear me. And even then it can't understand me. For game chat I also don't need it picking up everyone else in the room.

As far as the controllers and charging. Just get rechargable batteries. It's what I use in my 360 controller. I got the battery holders and us AA sanyo eneloop batteries. Works great!

I'd rather have a headset. I have a kinect now and don't care for yelling across the room for the thing to hear me. And even then it can't understand me. For game chat I also don't need it picking up everyone else in the room.

yeah. you already hear people's crappy music blasting over halo sometimes, and that's from a mic directly in front of someone's mouth. i'm not saying it can't be done, but i will be fucking amazed if kinect is any better at suppressing unwanted noise than a $5 headset. in all likelihood, it will be worse. i picture situations where it suddenly pumps a bit of rap music through because someone walks behind the sofa, fooling the kinect briefly. a cheapo microphone is at least predictable, has an off switch within arm's reach, etc.

Good, I don't want/need a headset. Why would I want to pay for hardware I will never use?

Said every person who doesn't want the Kinect hardware forced down their throat.

The Kinect is a CONTROLLER for the media center function of the console. You do get that right...? The One is no more a pure video game console than the PS4 is. You kids need to accept that these things are no longer simply video game consoles. I for one am happy they aren't bundling some cheap crappy headset with the thing. I always go out and buy a nice set if/when I decide I need or want one. People who use the media center features of The One will use the Kinect. Only gamers who play online will use the headsets. I don't do multi-player very often so I really don't need a headset.

Microsoft is a large corporation with lots of bureaucracy, with real people like you and me working there. They aren't "evil". Sometimes stupid, due to group think and inability to see outside their sphere. But they're not doing things to be evil. I don't think large corporations are capable of acting with evil intent. That doesn't mean they don't do things that we will see as consumer hostile.

Dude, they did studies on how easily they could trick consumers out of their rights using buzzwords and vague promises of future rewards.

So because you don't want a Kinect you think they should include a headset? I'm not seeing your point, unless your point was to use an article about the headset to complain about the Kinect.

My point is that not including a $2 value headset, to "save the customer money" is a ridiculous argument coming from a company that is also forcing a $100 accessory down it's customers throats with the same product.

Additionally, as a regular Xbox Live user who also owns current-gen connect, entering a chat party with a Kinect usually gets a less-than-welcome response and for good reason. The quality is shit, sometimes so shit that people can't even hear each other over the noise and will simply mute you or boot you. If Microsoft thought that quality was acceptable enough to release, I don't have much faith in the next iteration.

Also, disconnecting a headset doesn't automatically brick the console, making it vastly more desirable.

None of your comments about the Kinect are relevant, and several seem to be wrong.This is about a headset. You said it was "bad" that they weren't including a headset because there is a Kinect. So again, why is it "bad" that there is no headset included, considering most people won't use it/don't want it, or was that whole comment just made so you could complain about the Kinect?

...that's great and all and thanks for your input. But if you have read anything on this subject, you would know the Kinect cannot be disabled in any way.

Thanks for the correction. I had the impression the "always on" requirement had been deleted along with all the other "please don't buy me" features. So, the "disable" option remains not to let the thing in your house.

Microsoft is a large corporation with lots of bureaucracy, with real people like you and me working there. They aren't "evil". Sometimes stupid, due to group think and inability to see outside their sphere. But they're not doing things to be evil. I don't think large corporations are capable of acting with evil intent. That doesn't mean they don't do things that we will see as consumer hostile.

Dude, they did studies on how easily they could trick consumers out of their rights using buzzwords and vague promises of future rewards.

It's hard to categorize that as anything but "evil."

didn't the "greed is good" attitude go out with the 80s?

why is it so hard for people to understand that letting corporations do what's "natural" for them leads to large-scale social problems in short order?

None of your comments about the Kinect are relevant, and several seem to be wrong.This is about a headset. You said it was "bad" that they weren't including a headset because there is a Kinect. So again, why is it "bad" that there is no headset included, considering most people won't use it/don't want it, or was that whole comment just made so you could complain about the Kinect?

Glap, don't worry about him. He still claims that the Kinect being off will brick the system (it won't). Guys, Microsoft can't do the same shit the government can. Why do these NSA programs work? Because they're SECRET, i.e. not in the hands of the general population. Microsoft is openly selling to the masses a hardware and software combination, meaning they cannot physically secure any of its secrets, they can only patent and copyright it. The Kinect is blatantly going to be unable to carry out "secret" observation, because people will own it and can see exactly what it's doing. The worst that could happen is they TRY to make it do secret communications, but would be a completely catastrophic decision on their part because people will invariably find out about it and the whole company would probably tank.

...that's great and all and thanks for your input. But if you have read anything on this subject, you would know the Kinect cannot be disabled in any way.

Thanks for the correction. I had the impression the "always on" requirement had been deleted along with all the other "please don't buy me" features. So, the "disable" option remains not to let the thing in your house.

Seriously, people, how many times do we have to bash it over your head that the Kinect is not required to be always on and can be simply turned off? That idea stemmed from the demo of the Kinect listening for "Xbox on" to turn the system on. That's a feature which does not have to be used.

I just love the fact that my very expensive, beautifully working surround sound headphones that I can currently use will not work with the new xbox.

Why change the way the mic cable works if not to sell new headphones.

lucky for me these headphones already also wirelessly connect to the ps3.

do ps3 headphones work with the ps4?

I have not paid much attention to PS4. But in general, Playstation has stuck to using Bluetooth for their headsets so I would assume PS3 headsets will work with PS4.

Microsoft wants to make more money, or sees an advantage of using a new type of connection.

By the way, did you read the article? Products will be available to allow your Xbox 360 headsets to be used with the Xbox One. Takes away most of your criticism.

The article indicated a product to use Xbox One headset on 360, not the other way around unless i missed something

Quote:

Turtle Beach, however, has said that it will be providing an adapter that lets its Xbox One headsets work on Xbox 360 controllers, proving that such inter-compatibility is possible with extra hardware.

I think for multiplayer gamers a headset is a must-have, and MS knows they can make a buck here.

For those that will just use a mic for voice chat, rather than in-game strategy, the headset is probably less of a necessity.

However, if you've ever used any of the options that use a mic in-room and your TV speakers for output, you know this is less than ideal, results in echoing, it usually distorted and ultimately leads to using a headset anyway.

The Kinect was horrible for gamers on the current generation of Xbox consoles. They pick up EVERYTHING they had no smart noise cancellation and most users didn't even know they were enabled. It would pickup the TV, ambient converstatons, kids , dogs cats etc. The Kinect is NOT a valid tool to replace a microphone with for gaming.

I just love the fact that my very expensive, beautifully working surround sound headphones that I can currently use will not work with the new xbox.

Why change the way the mic cable works if not to sell new headphones.

lucky for me these headphones already also wirelessly connect to the ps3.

do ps3 headphones work with the ps4?

I have not paid much attention to PS4. But in general, Playstation has stuck to using Bluetooth for their headsets so I would assume PS3 headsets will work with PS4.

Microsoft wants to make more money, or sees an advantage of using a new type of connection.

By the way, did you read the article? Products will be available to allow your Xbox 360 headsets to be used with the Xbox One. Takes away most of your criticism.

The article indicated a product to use Xbox One headset on 360, not the other way around unless i missed something

Quote:

Turtle Beach, however, has said that it will be providing an adapter that lets its Xbox One headsets work on Xbox 360 controllers, proving that such inter-compatibility is possible with extra hardware.

Can I also point out that the headset that has an adapter (which is NOT provided by MS) starts at like $200? Turtle Beach headsets might as well be military-grade; they're expensive as hell.

Why is everyone so focused on the headset. For me, the lack of an out-of-the-box recharging solution is another reason to buy a PS4. The play and charge kit will likely be $20-$30 on top of a console that is already $100 more than a PS4.

An even better question: will the inevitable $40 P&C kit ($20-30 is low) use a lithium-ion cell instead of the stupid NiMH that the 360 packs used? The life on the 360s packs is atrocious.

I'm pretty firmly entrenched in Sony's ecosystem, but I really don't see the value to having a pack-in headset. When I get my PS4 and play an online game, the first thing I'm going to do is mute everyone. The last thing I need is to have a bunch of strangers yelling obscenities at me while I try to play.

I just love the fact that my very expensive, beautifully working surround sound headphones that I can currently use will not work with the new xbox.

Why change the way the mic cable works if not to sell new headphones.

lucky for me these headphones already also wirelessly connect to the ps3.

do ps3 headphones work with the ps4?

I have not paid much attention to PS4. But in general, Playstation has stuck to using Bluetooth for their headsets so I would assume PS3 headsets will work with PS4.

Microsoft wants to make more money, or sees an advantage of using a new type of connection.

By the way, did you read the article? Products will be available to allow your Xbox 360 headsets to be used with the Xbox One. Takes away most of your criticism.

The article indicated a product to use Xbox One headset on 360, not the other way around unless i missed something

Quote:

Turtle Beach, however, has said that it will be providing an adapter that lets its Xbox One headsets work on Xbox 360 controllers, proving that such inter-compatibility is possible with extra hardware.

Can I also point out that the headset that has an adapter (which is NOT provided by MS) starts at like $200? Turtle Beach headsets might as well be military-grade; they're expensive as hell.

Turtle Beach and Tritton are pretty much the lowest of the common headsets. Turtle Beach headsets can be had for #30-$40. Sennheiser and Astro are your premium priced stuff. I used to run a website focused on headset reviews.

Yes, TB does have some expensive stuff now, but they all have a ton of cheapo stuff.

I just love the fact that my very expensive, beautifully working surround sound headphones that I can currently use will not work with the new xbox.

Why change the way the mic cable works if not to sell new headphones.

lucky for me these headphones already also wirelessly connect to the ps3.

do ps3 headphones work with the ps4?

I have not paid much attention to PS4. But in general, Playstation has stuck to using Bluetooth for their headsets so I would assume PS3 headsets will work with PS4.

Microsoft wants to make more money, or sees an advantage of using a new type of connection.

By the way, did you read the article? Products will be available to allow your Xbox 360 headsets to be used with the Xbox One. Takes away most of your criticism.

The article indicated a product to use Xbox One headset on 360, not the other way around unless i missed something

Quote:

Turtle Beach, however, has said that it will be providing an adapter that lets its Xbox One headsets work on Xbox 360 controllers, proving that such inter-compatibility is possible with extra hardware.

I must have read that wrong. I assume they'll release an adapter for the reverse too so they don't have to reengineer their entire product line.

I agree, it's controversial to force people to follow your vision of the future. I'm not sure forcing the Kinect thing was a great idea. I didn't use Kinect for Xbox 360. Didn't see the need. However, I am kind of excited about being able to Skype with my family conveniently and maybe some of the new Kinect games will be cool enough to tempt me.

I recently finished reading the Steve Jobs biography. He forced his vision of the future on consumers many times, and didn't care enough about what consumers wanted to do focus group testing etc. Many people said it was controversial at the time, but you have to admit it made him very successful. I think Microsoft is using similar tactics. They probably won't be as good as Steve Jobs about it, but at least they're trying to emulate success.

I think there needs to be a real call for honesty about this; people often invoke the imagery of Steve Jobs and Apple as a sort of analog for this sort of situation. But there is just a massive gulf between Apple and Microsoft, as well as between Steve Jobs and Steve Ballmer.

I should first preface by saying that I'm not particularly fond of Steve Jobs, nor am I of Apple. I'm relatively platform agnostic, and not brand loyal. It's actually kind of stupid that I have to put in a preface at all, but I suppose that's the price that accompanies a post-rating system.

Firstly, Apple's "visionary" products have tended to be more organic than imposed. The iPod, the iPhone, the iPad - they were products for which large markets existed, but no suitable product yet existed. Apple didn't invent the MP3 player, the smart phone, nor the tablet computer; it was just Apple that put together the best products at the time to answer the demand.

Secondly, not all of Apple's products have been revolutionary. In fact, if you really look at the evolution of their products - both hardware and software - they have a pretty established history of working on an iterative basis. Mac OS X has evolved slowly over time, as has iOS (up until quite recently). The same goes for the hardware. Macbooks, iPhones, iPads, and iMacs have evolved slowly, and remained relatively stable and predictable in their trajectories.

Thirdly, Apple and Microsoft (and, by extension, Steve Jobs and Steve Ballmer) have been worlds apart in building and maintaining customer trust in their products and abilities to execute high-quality services and new product offerings. As much as it sounds like marketing PR, Apple products do tend to work consistently and intuitively. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said about Microsoft's products. This likely has to do with the different mantras that each company follows. Apple has repeatedly stated that it will only make products which it thinks it can be the absolute best in making. (In my opinion, this has actually had a detrimental effect on Apple's ability to innovate, and has led to an increasingly closed-box mentality). Microsoft, on the other hand, seems to chase after every ball it can. It wants to be a player in every market - from software to hardware to mobile to web, and everything in between. Unfortunately, this lack of focus has had some pretty evident ramifications on the quality of its overall product line.

Fourthly, there is a great difference in the way that each company has gone about ushering in its change. Microsoft has a tendency to be somewhat ham-fisted in its approach. There's also a stubborn unwillingness to address product disappointments and failures. This XB1 reversal is a nice change; I'd like to see that kind of contrition with W8. There are plenty of examples of Apple's arrogance (the iPhone 4 antenna situation comes quickly to mind), but they are mixed with apologies for bad releases (Apple Maps, for example).

I agree, it's controversial to force people to follow your vision of the future. I'm not sure forcing the Kinect thing was a great idea. I didn't use Kinect for Xbox 360. Didn't see the need. However, I am kind of excited about being able to Skype with my family conveniently and maybe some of the new Kinect games will be cool enough to tempt me.

I recently finished reading the Steve Jobs biography. He forced his vision of the future on consumers many times, and didn't care enough about what consumers wanted to do focus group testing etc. Many people said it was controversial at the time, but you have to admit it made him very successful. I think Microsoft is using similar tactics. They probably won't be as good as Steve Jobs about it, but at least they're trying to emulate success.

I think there needs to be a real call for honesty about this; people often invoke the imagery of Steve Jobs and Apple as a sort of analog for this sort of situation. But there is just a massive gulf between Apple and Microsoft, as well as between Steve Jobs and Steve Ballmer.

I should first preface by saying that I'm not particularly fond of Steve Jobs, nor am I of Apple. I'm relatively platform agnostic, and not brand loyal. It's actually kind of stupid that I have to put in a preface at all, but I suppose that's the price that accompanies a post-rating system.

Firstly, Apple's "visionary" products have tended to be more organic than imposed. The iPod, the iPhone, the iPad - they were products for which large markets existed, but no suitable product yet existed. Apple didn't invent the MP3 player, the smart phone, nor the tablet computer; it was just Apple that put together the best products at the time to answer the demand.

Secondly, not all of Apple's products have been revolutionary. In fact, if you really look at the evolution of their products - both hardware and software - they have a pretty established history of working on an iterative basis. Mac OS X has evolved slowly over time, as has iOS (up until quite recently). The same goes for the hardware. Macbooks, iPhones, iPads, and iMacs have evolved slowly, and remained relatively stable and predictable in their trajectories.

Thirdly, Apple and Microsoft (and, by extension, Steve Jobs and Steve Ballmer) have been worlds apart in building and maintaining customer trust in their products and abilities to execute high-quality services and new product offerings. As much as it sounds like marketing PR, Apple products do tend to work consistently and intuitively. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said about Microsoft's products. This likely has to do with the different mantras that each company follows. Apple has repeatedly stated that it will only make products which it thinks it can be the absolute best in making. (In my opinion, this has actually had a detrimental effect on Apple's ability to innovate, and has led to an increasingly closed-box mentality). Microsoft, on the other hand, seems to chase after every ball it can. It wants to be a player in every market - from software to hardware to mobile to web, and everything in between. Unfortunately, this lack of focus has had some pretty evident ramifications on the quality of its overall product line.

Fourthly, there is a great difference in the way that each company has gone about ushering in its change. Microsoft has a tendency to be somewhat ham-fisted in its approach. There's also a stubborn unwillingness to address product disappointments and failures. This XB1 reversal is a nice change; I'd like to see that kind of contrition with W8. There are plenty of examples of Apple's arrogance (the iPhone 4 antenna situation comes quickly to mind), but they are mixed with apologies for bad releases (Apple Maps, for example).

Anyway, just my thoughts.

I agree with you for the most part. Microsoft is no Apple, Steve Balmer is not Steve Jobs. But Jobs/Apple were successful. And if you're going to imitate, try to imitate the best right?

And there's no denying Apple has been extraordinarily successful, whether you like them or not.

Microsoft drops the ball on a lot due to a different corporate culture and the lack of a good products leader. I'm thinking Windows RT, tablet PC's etc. Apple/Jobs knew what the right direction was to take their products, even before the general population knew or agreed it was the right direction. Apple's ability to identify the essential things to nail for each product is what makes their stuff so good/popular in my opinion.

Why is everyone so focused on the headset. For me, the lack of an out-of-the-box recharging solution is another reason to buy a PS4. The play and charge kit will likely be $20-$30 on top of a console that is already $100 more than a PS4.

An even better question: will the inevitable $40 P&C kit ($20-30 is low) use a lithium-ion cell instead of the stupid NiMH that the 360 packs used? The life on the 360s packs is atrocious.

I use Apple rechargeable batteries. Don't know what technology they use but the battery life is pretty good.

"Each Xbox One includes the new Kinect sensor, with a highly sensitive multi-array microphones designed to enable voice inputs and chat as a system-level capability, both in-game and with Skype and other experiences"

- so headset or not, the kinect will be able to hear / transfer what you're saying. Creepy. Goodbye microsoft.

My 360 came with a headset, it broke(after being very careful with it), I got another years ago and now that has inexplicably stopped working. I tried using the Kinect and maybe because it was an ancient game(Burnout Revenge) I could not hear my friends over the blaring (annoying EA Trax) music. I turned off the music, but I thought the Kinect was really not that great for chat. Maybe the new Kinect will be better.

"Each Xbox One includes the new Kinect sensor, with a highly sensitive multi-array microphones designed to enable voice inputs and chat as a system-level capability, both in-game and with Skype and other experiences"

- so headset or not, the kinect will be able to hear / transfer what you're saying. Creepy. Goodbye microsoft.

"Each Xbox One includes the new Kinect sensor, with a highly sensitive multi-array microphones designed to enable voice inputs and chat as a system-level capability, both in-game and with Skype and other experiences"

- so headset or not, the kinect will be able to hear / transfer what you're saying. Creepy. Goodbye microsoft.

Good, I don't want/need a headset. Why would I want to pay for hardware I will never use?

Said every person who doesn't want the Kinect hardware forced down their throat.

The Kinect is a CONTROLLER for the media center function of the console. You do get that right...? The One is no more a pure video game console than the PS4 is. You kids need to accept that these things are no longer simply video game consoles. I for one am happy they aren't bundling some cheap crappy headset with the thing. I always go out and buy a nice set if/when I decide I need or want one. People who use the media center features of The One will use the Kinect. Only gamers who play online will use the headsets. I don't do multi-player very often so I really don't need a headset.

[quote="[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=24783567#p24783567]Best of luck convincing people that screaming at their media center and flinging their arms around like a scarecrow caught in a tornado is the superior control scheme of tomorrow.[/quote]

You obviously haven't seen the Kinect v2 demos. No screaming required and the hand gestures are purely optional.

[quote="[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=24783567#p24783567]Best of luck convincing people that screaming at their media center and flinging their arms around like a scarecrow caught in a tornado is the superior control scheme of tomorrow.

You obviously haven't seen the Kinect v2 demos. No screaming required and the hand gestures are purely optional.[/quote]

I haven't seen any hardware demos no. I saw the demos and videos presented at E3, but that wasn't the commercial model and was actually a big ass piece of development hardware that they used for those so unless they have released more I don't know where you have either.

Even better than that, their new kinect demo turned off the Xboxes of 360 viewers streaming from home when they kept shouting voice commands. If they don't even understand how their current hardware works I'm not exactly convinced they can get it right with the new spiffified version.

From the sales and marketing point - that's great, they'll get kids screaming mad at parents to fork out on the charging kit because "it's better". I've looked it up and in the UK the 360 charge kit retails for £15 at Game, so I'm assuming the one for the new Xbox would cost at least as much. This is half the price of a brand new Dualshock controller if compared to PS3. And guess what's inside the Xbox Play and Charge kit? A cheapo GP-branded set of Ni-MH AA batteries!

Whichever way you look it - a shitty move from Microsoft for consumer with a rip-off written all over it.

I had no idea! Ni-MH are terrible and cheap batteries. >_< There are problems with overcharging it and the batteries discharging over time when not in use. The electronic device has to take this into consideration to prolong battery life, and I'm not sure that the controller actually does that.The low self discharge NiMH (eneloops) are fine, but definitely not these ones!

I seriously did not expect this. Getting the right kind of batteries/power is a basic requirement for electronic devices!